January 14, 2015

Oscars 2014: Nominations Eve

It feels like I just finished writing about last year’s Oscar season, and here we are, back for another go-round.

BEST PICTUREOur story begins with Boyhood. Our story may well end with Boyhood too, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. That’s a consideration for a different post. For now, we can head into the Oscar nominations knowing that Boyhood‘s slot is secure. Sitting pretty right alongside it are Birdman, The Imitation Game, and probably The Theory of Everything.

From there, the guesswork begins. Since early December, various regional critics associations from around the country have had their say, and if their influence is to be believed, then The Grand Budapest Hotel is a sure thing. For me, the film’s status as one of the three most honored movies of the year – alongside Boyhood and Birdman – has been one of the season’s biggest surprises. I remember the reviews being strong when the movie came out all the way back in early March, but not that strong. Its consistent presence as either a winner or nominee for Best Picture and Best Director among these many critics groups, as well as its appearance in several other categories, suggests that it will do well at the Oscars too. Or could it be a critical darling that doesn’t translate to the Academy? I’ve been burned with Wes Anderson before. Moonrise Kingdom seemed like a safe bet for a nomination here in 2012, but it didn’t materialize. Granted, Budapest is having an even stronger showing with these precursor awards than Moonrise did, but I’m still not 100% convinced. Even in crafts categories like Cinematography and Production Design, where Anderson’s films always shine, his work has never gained traction with the Academy. Only the Writer’s branch of the organization has ever warmed to him. If Moonrise Kingdom couldn’t catch a break here, can Budapest? It’s a bit darker and colder, whereas Moonrise Kingdom had a sweetness, innocence and charm that seemed more like Academy fare. Fact is, this shouldn’t even be a question. The critics have showered it with attention, it just scored a surprise Golden Globe win for Best Picture – Musical or Comedy over Birdman, and nearly every guild has nominated it so far, including the Producers Guild of America (PGA) and, just yesterday, the Directors Guild of America (DGA). Clearly the movie has support not just from critics, but within the industry, where it matters for Oscar voting. Only the Academy’s past lack of interest in Anderson leaves me skeptical…though that DGA nomination speaks pretty loudly. The movie’s got too much momentum to bet against it, and this entire paragraph has probably been a waste of time. But if one of tomorrow’s big surprises is that Budapest is MIA in this category, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

One last thing on this topic: if Budapest does land with the Academy, it will land big. Like, maybe the-most-nominated-film-of-the-year big, given how many categories it has the potential to hit.

So what else? Gone Girl? The Academy has taken a shine to David Fincher’s work in recent years (where were they in ’95, when Seven should have raked in the nominations?), and Girl has done well on the critic’s circuit, so it could find a place here, but it doesn’t feel like a lock. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo had experienced love from both critics and industry guilds by this point in the 2011 Oscar season, making a Best Picture nomination seem likely. It didn’t happen. Then again, Gone Girl‘s depiction of a marriage gone wrong could prove more relatable to voters – which sounds really twisted assuming you know the details of the film or novel – but movies about troubled marriages (to put it gently in this case) can become conversation pieces and must-see movies for couples. That might give it more favorable odds than Dragon Tattoo had.

You can usually count on a couple of celebrated indie films to crack the Best Picture race, and the two this year that seem likely to follow in the footsteps of Precious, Winter’s Bone and Beasts of the Southern Wild are Nightcrawler and Whiplash. I’m pretty confident the former will make it, and almost as confident that the latter will as well. It’s always exciting to see smaller films like these emerge out of the festival circuit – be it early in the year at Sundance, where Whiplash won the Audience Award and the Grand Jury Prize, or in the fall festivals like Telluride or Toronto, where Nightcrawler first showed up – and inject themselves into the award season conversation because they’re genuinely good, and not because their plot descriptions or talent roster make them presumptive contenders. Unbroken and Into the Woods are two notable films that fall on that side of the line. Neither has borne out the strong showings that their pedigrees had us expecting, and despite being respectfully received, both have struggled to find a foothold. Interstellar also came into the season with high hopes in top categories, but those ambitions haven’t panned out. If the PGA had included it among their 10 nominees, it might have still had a shot. The PGA often throws in a mainstream blockbuster (Star Trek, Bridemaids and Skyfall have made their list in recent years…as did Moonrise Kingdom, by the way), so if Interstellar didn’t make their cut, a Best Picture nod from the Academy seems more unlikely. Still, the PGA vote is coming just from producers, while the Academy’s Best Picture nominees are selected by the entire membership, including the artisans whose work is always well-served by Christopher Nolan – visual effects artists, production designers, etc. So while down, it’s not necessarily out. (Unbroken and Woods also missed with the PGA.)

Some people are worried about Selma‘s chances, as the movie hasn’t achieved the level of awards attention so far that would seem necessary to carry it into the Oscar race. It’s recognition from the guilds so far has been soft, but part of that is likely due to the fact that the movie was finished so late in the year that screener DVDs weren’t available to be sent out to guild and Academy members until late December. That was probably one factor in a high-profile miss with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), but the same thing happened last year with The Wolf of Wall Street, and that would up doing just fine nomination-wise. Selma has key nominations from the Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA) and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), which hands out the Golden Globes, and even though its absence from the PGA, DGA and British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA) lists is disappointing – all three organizations share crossover with the Academy membership, unlike the HFPA or BFCA – Selma is garnering strong attention and hitting the right notes. I think it’s in.

The remaining films that I could see going either way are Foxcatcher, Wild and American Sniper. I thought Foxcatcher would be a major force to be reckoned with, given the glowing reviews coming out of the Cannes Film Festival last summer. Yet it’s had a surprisingly weak showing with the critics groups. Still, it has received lifelines when it’s needed them most, in the form of SAG and Golden Globe nominations for Steve Carell and Mark Ruffalo, as well as a Best Picture nod at the Globes, and also nominations from the PGA, Art Directors Guild (ADG) and Writers Guild (WGA). Will its grim, unsettling aesthetic hold it back, or can it become director Bennett Miller’s third consecutive Best Picture nominee after Capote and Moneyball? As for Wild, the focus has been on Reese Witherspoon’s performance, but the movie comes from the same director as Dallas Buyers Club, which became last year’s little movie that could. Wild could have been a lot less interesting and well-made than it is, and though I’d call it a long-shot, it could crack the Best Picture race. American Sniper, meanwhile, just seems to be hitting its stride over the past two weeks, with nominations from the PGA, DGA, ADG, WGA and American Cinema Editors (ACE). That guild support demonstrates broad respect across disciplines. I think there are better, more deserving films out there (like A Most Violent Year and Inherent Vice, neither of which seem to have much of a shot here, though I suppose Year could sneak in), but Academy members aren’t particularly concerned with what I think.

The biggest question these days for Best Picture isn’t about what will be nominated, but how many nominees there will be. It could be anywhere from five to ten, and in every year since that rule was introduced, the list has held at nine. I’ll continue to expect that number until it comes in at something different, which it inevitably will one of these years. When the change was announced in 2011, the press release explained that the Academy’s accountants applied the new method to the Best Picture races from 2001-2008, and during that period there would been years with five, six, seven, eight and nine nominees (though never ten, interestingly). Until I see evidence to the contrary, I’m guessing we’ll get another field of nine this year.

Predictions:
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Nightcrawler
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

BEST DIRECTORBack in July, I thought that come Oscar season I would have to make a case for Richard Linklater to be nominated for Best Director, citing his unique place in the filmmaking world and his determination to capture authenticity onscreen in a way that, as evidenced by Boyhood‘s 12 year production, few American filmmakers ever attempt. All for naught, as it turns out. There’s no case to be made and no minds to sway. Without any help from me, Linklater’s nomination is assured, and as of now he stands as the frontrunner for the prize. So perhaps I’ll save some of the comments I had in mind until a later time. Instead, let’s focus on who will be joining him, beginning with the category’s other sure thing, Birdman helmer Alejandro G. Iñárritu. If the Academy does embrace The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson has to be a favorite here, although given the cold shoulder his work has gotten from the Academy before, I could also see the director’s branch denying him recognition. As I said above, Anderson did score his first DGA nomination, so that’s a a good sign. But the DGA and Academy almost never line up five for five in their nominations, so at least one name on their list is probably out with the Academy. In addition to Anderson, Linklater and Iñárritu, the DGA nominated Clint Eastwood for American Sniper and Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game. Eastwood…I love the guy of course, but this is such a disappointing nomination. American Sniper is a solid movie, but we’ve seen it before. It has more than a little in common with The Hurt Locker, and there are just better, more original, more interesting movies that deserve this spot. Will Clint get the Oscar nod too? The Academy loves him, but they also love The Imitation Game…so much that some people think it could overtake Boyhood for the top award when all is said and done. Like Grand Budapest and Birdman, guild support for Imitation has been strong, indicating popularity across Academy branches. And if they love it that much, Tyldum may be an obvious choice for them to make, even if he lacks Eastwood’s name recognition.

So who else has a chance here outside of the DGA’s selections? I believe Ava DuVernay is still very much in this thing for Selma, though the DGA nod would have been a nice boost. The DGA has several thousand members (many from television) and tends toward popular picks, whereas the Academy’s directing branch has only a few hundred members (all working in film), and frequently looks outside the box. With that in mind, Whiplash director Damien Chazelle is a possibility, and a nod for Nightcrawler‘s Dan Gilroy is a longshot but not inconceivable. If they wanted to step way outside the box, Under the Skin‘s Jonathan Glazer would be a bold move, but that’s highly doubtful. There are plenty of names in the general mix, like David Fincher, Bennett Miller, James Marsh (The Theory of Everything) and J.C. Chandor (A Most Violent Year), but I feel like without a nomination from the DGA, those names are DOA. Chazelle and DuVernay seem like the only ones who stand a legitimate chance of breaking in. Linklater and Iñárritu should be fine, and I just don’t know about Anderson. He should be a no-brainer, but uncertainty keeps gnawing at me. My gut tells me Eastwood bumps him, but Grand Budapest‘s unwavering show of force throughout the season tells me he’s in. So maybe DuVernay gets squeezed out? AHHHHHHHH, this is so hard!

BEST ACTORFor the second year in a row, the array of contenders in this category is stunning, and no matter what happens, some remarkable work is going to be left out. Let’s start with the four guys who have been considered the frontrunners since as early as October: Michael Keaton for Birdman, Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything, Steve Carell for Foxcatcher, and Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game. It seemed impossible that any of these guys might not go the distance, but Carell’s standing has weakened considerably as he’s been omitted from the majority of critics awards nominations. He did get SAG and Golden Globe nominations, which are key, but he can no longer be counted on as a sure thing. I can’t imagine people aren’t impressed with the performance, so perhaps the problem has been that Carell’s character John du Pont falls somewhere between lead and supporting. He doesn’t have enough screen time to be called a lead, and Foxcatcher is really the story of Channing Tatum’s character. Yet du Pont looms large over the whole film, and his actions largely drive the story and set events in motion. So it’s a tough call. Sony Pictures Classics, the studio behind the film, opted to campaign Carell (along with Tatum) as a lead, but the BAFTA voters recognized him in the Supporting category. It does happen occasionally that voters ignore a studio’s campaign and move an actor into a different category than where they were promoted. So Carell is in an interesting position. Will his fellow actors honor him here, put him into Supporting Actor instead, or pass him over altogether?

If he doesn’t make it here, there is no shortage of worthy successors to take his place. Redmayne and Keaton – who both won Golden Globes this week – remain locks, and Cumberbatch is probably safe too, though I can absolutely see him being the guy everyone assumed was locked in who ends up out in the cold. If he makes it, that leaves two spots and a dozen contenders in addition to Carell. The two most likely to find their way in are David Oyelowo for Selma and Jake Gyllenhaal for Nightcrawler. Gyllenhaal has SAG, Golden Globe, BFCA and BAFTA nominations in his favor, and has been the most frequent winner amongst the critics next to Keaton, who has been the season’s big victor so far. Oyelowo’s place is less assured. He missed out on the SAG nomination, but as mentioned earlier, screeners were not available during SAG’s voting period, so there was no way that most voters would have been able to see his work yet. More surprising is his lack of a BAFTA nomination. Still, I get the sense that he – and Selma in general – is gaining steam.

Next are a pair of gentlemen who seem to be on the cusp: Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel and Timothy Spall in Mr. Turner (also known to fans of the Harry Potter films as Voldemort and Wormtail.) Both are terrific in their roles, but neither has broken through with the momentum they would probably need to get nominated. Still, I wouldn’t count them out, with Fiennes standing the better chance of the two. He has a Golden Globe nomination (in the Musical/Comedy category; that division poses limitations in the jump to an Oscar nod, especially since he was up against Keaton), as well as a BFCA nomination (note that BFCA categories have 6 nominees vs. the Academy’s standard 5) and a BAFTA nomination. He’s also in a film that could turn into a big player with the Academy. Spall has none of these advanatges; just a couple of victories from high-profile critics groups (as well as a Best Actor win at Cannes, though that hardly translates), and the benefit of appearing in a Mike Leigh film. The Academy is quite fond of Leigh, so you can be sure Mr. Turner is on their radar, regardless of how well it ultimately does.

I should also mention Bradley Cooper, gunning (no pun intended) for his third consecutive nomination with American Sniper. I’ve stated my thoughts on Sniper, and they extend to Cooper. Nothing against him or his fine work, I think there are much more noteworthy performances that deserves the attention. But as I also mentioned earlier, American Sniper was gaining a foothold just as the deadline for Oscar nomination ballots was getting close. Ben Affleck recently stumped for Cooper, and his comments about why the film and Cooper’s performance are important at this moment in time could very well resonate with the Academy. He’s on the outside looking in, but he’s coming up fast.

But wait, there’s more! Although none of these people have a chance of making the cut, the fact is that all are worthy of a place at the table. In a just world, Chadwick Boseman would be in the thick of the conversation for his dazzling work as James Brown in Get On Up; reigning champ Matthew McConaughey crushes it once again with an emotional performance in Interstellar; Locke is set entirely in a car, in real-time, with Tom Hardy captivating as a driver who shifts from one cell phone call to another juggling huge personal and professional dilemmas; Oscar Isaac, who should have been nominated last year for Inside Llewyn Davis, deserves a spot again for his quiet, wonderfully specific work in A Most Violent Year; the similarly titled A Most Wanted Man features one of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s last performances, and even near the end his work was potent as ever; Joaquin Phoenix, who also should have been nominated last year for Her, is a hilarious but grounded guide through the beautifully strange trip of Inherent Vice; in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Andy Serkis continues to deliver rich, stirring work utilizing motion capture technology; Jude Law’s electric, uproarious turn in Dom Hemingway was completely ignored in the year-end critic’s accolades despite the universal praise he received when the movie came out in April; Channing Tatum is riveting as the centerpiece of Foxcatcher, as deserving of awards as his two co-stars who have been the ones getting honored; Whiplash star Miles Teller has also been overshadowed by a co-star’s success, but does fiercely committed work. There’s also Bill Murray in St. Vincent, Brendan Gleeson in Calvary, Jack O’Connell in Unbroken, and John Lithgow in Love is Strange – all performances that have generated buzz, though none have quite the force they’d need to make the cut even in a less crowded year.

BEST ACTRESSSadly, as is too often the case, the embarrassment of riches in the male actor categories is not equaled here.The pickings aren’t slim exactly, but there are far fewer strong options than in Best Actor. The winner on the critics side so far, though not by a great distance, is Gone Girl‘s Rosamund Pike. When she was being touted as a contender around the movie’s early October release, I wasn’t sure she could sustain the buzz, but now she’s a frontrunner for the nomination. She is sure to be joined by Reese Witherspoon for Wild and Julianne Moore for Still Alice. In fact, ever since Alice debuted at the Toronto Film Festival, Moore has been dubbed the one to beat. Her march toward victory may have begun Sunday night with her Golden Globe win. We’ll see how she does from here with the BFCA, SAG and BAFTA. Felicity Jones, who plays Stephen Hawking’s wife in The Theory of Everything, is also a likely nominee.

The other actress to collect a fair share of critics prizes is Marion Cotillard. She has two shots, with excellent performances in The Immigrant and the French film Two Days, One Night. Some critics groups cited her for both, but Two Days, One Night has been the primary focus of attention. (I haven’t had a chance to see it, unfortuntely, as it just opened in Los Angeles this week.) I think Cotillard’s recognition ends with the critics. It’s unlikely that, in a crowded season with too many movies to see, enough voters will see this film to boost Cotillard into the final five. If she couldn’t make it this far in 2012 for Rust and Bone, with the wind of SAG, Golden Globe, BFCA and BAFTA nominations in her sails, I’d be surprised if she could make it here with none of those.

A surprising contender who does have those nominations in her favor except for BAFTA (I don’t think her film had been released in England in time to be considered) is Jennifer Aniston, who plays a hardened woman suffering from chronic pain in Cake. I could see things going either way for her, but it would be nice to see her land the nomination given that she’s still defined by her TV work. Cake is a dramedy and allows Aniston to utilize her well-honed comedic skills, but through a much darker, more bitter filter than we’re used to seeing. And she palpably carries her character’s extreme and constant discomfort. It succeeds as a change-of-pace performance, no doubt, but will enough voters find the time to see the movie?

Beyond these six actresses, there are a handful of others who have dotted the award landscape so far, but none have any considerable momentum. Amy Adams is fine in Big Eyes, but there’s not a whole lot to the role that would seem to earn her a place here. She’s beloved by the Academy though, so she’s always a possibility. I’ve bet against her before and lost. She won the Golden Globe award in the Musical/Comedy category, and has a BAFTA slot that might have seemed destined for Cotillard, so she can’t be dismissed. Many critics groups have taken notice of Essie Davis, an Australian actress who impresses as a haunted single-mother in the psychological horror film The Babadook. She deserves consideration, but this movie is well outside the Academy’s comfort zone. Even with vocal championing from William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist – one of the rare horror films that did well with the Academy – I doubt enough people have seen the movie. Under the Skin‘s Scarlett Johansson, The Homesman‘s Hilary Swank, Obvious Child‘s Jenny Slate and Beyond the Lights‘ Gugu Mbatha-Raw have garnered a bit of attention from critics groups – Johansson’s received a fair amount, actually – but it’s hard to imagine any of them can land in the final five. It’s a shame that Shailene Woodley hasn’t been talked about, because she does really lovely work in The Fault in Our Stars and deserves serious consideration. You know who else does? Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part I. The role of Katniss Everdeen has always been a rich one with a lot to offer, and Lawrence is an actress who knows what to do with it. She gets to play a lot of different beats in this movie, and shouldn’t be overlooked because the movie is seen as a blockbuster and nothing more. It’s more.

This is a category that could really benefit from a bold stroke or two this year. Whether that’s Lawrence or Johansson, Mbatha-Raw or Woodley, it would be nice to see a big surprise to make up for the lack of worthy roles.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
We already know who’s going to win this, but the game must be played nonetheless, so who will join Whiplash‘s powerhouse J.K. Simmons on the list of nominees? Start with Edward Norton, the only guy who could maybe give Simmons a reason to sweat. Birdman provides Norton with his meatiest role in ages, and he tears into it with all the gusto you’d expect from a guy with his talent. Next is Ethan Hawke, who has been a consistent nominee among critics groups for his convivial dad in Boyhood, and Mark Ruffalo for Foxcatcher. Ruffalo has been much more of a force than Carell among the critics groups, chalking up nominations from almost every organization that names nominees (as opposed to just citing a winner and maybe a runner-up). That doesn’t mean the performance is more appreciated than Carell’s, which most groups probably kept in the more crowded Best Actor discussion. It’s probably just a result of there being more room to play with in this year’s Best Supporting Actor arena.

Quite a bit of room, actually. The list of viable contenders here is unusually small. Robert Duvall in The Judge has SAG, Golden Globe and BFCA nominations, but with all due respect to a legendary actor who should have won a second Oscar by now, I’ll be hugely disappointed if the Academy wastes a spot on him for a movie that was as predictable as it gets, and a stock role that an actor of Duvall’s talent could play in someone else’s sleep. Instead, how about going for Josh Brolin in Inherent Vice? The acting branch responds well to the films of Paul Thomas Anderson, and although Vice didn’t land as an across-the-board player this year, Brolin’s turn as a no-bullshit cop with a vehement disdain for hippies is seen as one of its best chances for some Oscar love. As discussed in the Best Actor section, there’s also the possibility that Steve Carell pops up here for Foxcatcher. If that were to happen, I assume he’d be nominated alongside Ruffalo, rather than knocking his co-star out of contention (which would be an ironic turn of events given their character’s relationship). Riz Ahmed, who plays Jake Gyllenhaal’s naive co-worker in Nightcrawler, could potentially be the beneficiary of what appears to be a lot of admiration for that movie among Academy members, while Alfred Molina earned a couple of critics nods for Love is Strange. The Academy still owes him for Frida, so in the absence of a strong roster here, I’d be okay with that. Doubtful it will happen though. Equally doubtful: that Andy Serkis will finally break through. He deserved it back in 2002 for The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and again in 2011 for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I brought him up in the Best Actor section for Rise‘s follow-up Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and if Academy members consider him at all, that’s really where they should do it, as his ape leader Caesar really is the lead performance. His co-star Toby Kebbell meanwhile, deserves the consideration in this category. But we must ease into these things, and the Supporting category is probably where any voters with the smarts to vote for Serkis at all would put him. If that’s what it takes, I’m okay with it. Alas, it’s all wishful thinking. Voters still have to come around to motion capture performances being given their due.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Like Best Supporting Actor, this category has a way-out-in-front frontrunner in Boyhood‘s Patricia Arquette. She’ll likely be joined by Jessica Chastain for A Most Violent Year, Emma Stone for Birdman, and probably Kiera Knightley for The Imitation Game. Does Meryl Streep get the fifth nomination for Into the Woods? Most likely. She has the Golden Globe, SAG and BFCA nomination hat-trick, and she is, of course, Meryl Streep. Personally I was a somewhat underwhelmed by her performance as The Witch. I thought she didn’t do much of anything with the character.

Also in the running is Tilda Swinton, who fared well with the critics for her gleeful antagonist in Snowpiercer, though I wonder if that film was widely seen by voters. Laura Dern for Wild, Rene Russo for Nightcrawler and Katherine Waterston for Inherent Vice are all circling, and any of them could get lucky, but the biggest obstacle may be that the parts are all fairly small. That’s most true for Dern, although she does shine in the scenes she has. Russo meets the challenge of conveying a lot about her character in a short period and without always being able to get things across through dialogue, and the admiration for Nightcrawler is raising her profile. Relative newcomer Waterston (son of Law & Order‘s Sam), meanwhile, makes a strong impression in Vice, leaving her mark all over the movie even when she’s not on screen.

Naomi Watts snuck into the SAG race for her funny, enjoyable work as a Russian prostitute in St. Vincent, taking a slot that Chastain has occupied in most other races (like Selma, Chastain’s A Most Violent Year wasn’t able to get screeners out early in the season), but the chances of her repeating that with the Academy are slim. I would argue, however, that she deserves consideration for Birdman, even though the attention there has all been on Emma Stone. I’m also partial to Carrie Coon as Ben Affleck’s dour twin sister in Gone Girl. And Kristen Stewart was quite good as Julianne Moore’s perceptive daughter in Still Alice. The Polish film Ida, a possible nominee for Best Foreign Language Film, features an actress named Agata Kulesza who made a number of critics lists, but like several other films I’ve mentioned so far, it’s doubtful that enough voters have seen it to consider her. Assuming that turns out not to be a problem for Jennifer Aniston and Cake, voters could warm to Adriana Barraza. A nominee in this category in 2006 for Babel, Barraza does lovely work as the weary employee of Aniston’s prickly character.

The problem with many of these performances – even some of those most assured of a nomination – is that they aren’t as substantial as you would want an Oscar nominated (or winning) role to be. It’s frustrating, because the actresses all do excellent work, but this category features so few parts with the necessary screen time and/or character depth to really let them soar. If that’s just how it is, then one performance I’d mention that hasn’t garnered any talk in the precursor stage but which left an impression on me was Dorothy Atkinson’s in Mr. Turner. As the title character’s longtime housekeeper, Atkinson barely has any dialogue, but her awkward stance and pining eyes reveal a lifetime of experience. In a field that will mostly celebrate roles where the characters don’t have enough to do, Atkinson would be a welcome surprise.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
If there’s one category where The Grand Budapest Hotel is a safe bet, this is it. It will easily be joined by the other two leaders of the award season, Birdman and Boyhood, with Nightcrawler also a near-guarantee. The fifth slot would likely have gone to Whiplash, until the Academy threw a late-in-the-game curve ball. Whiplash has won or been nominated for a number of Original Screenplay awards among critic groups, including the BFCA, as well as BAFTA and the WGA. But last week, news broke that the Academy had ruled the script an adaptation. Writer/director Damien Chazelle wrote Whiplash based on personal experience, then filmed a lengthy sequence from early in the script as a short film which he could use as a calling card to drum up – ha! – financing for the feature. His effort was successful, and off he went. But because of that short film, which even won a prize at Sundance a year before the feature played the festival, the Academy considers Whiplash an adaptation.

Remember, the Adapted screenplay category is technically named Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published. In the case of Whiplash, they’re focusing on the “Previously Produced or Published” phrase, when what they should be paying attention to is the word “based.” Whiplash the feature is not based on material previously produced or published. It is based on an original screenplay, a portion of which was filmed as a contained short before the feature was made. If Whiplash had been conceived as a short film and then later expanded to feature-length – like another terrific film from this year, Obvious Child – then Best Adapted Screenplay would have been the proper place for it. But that wasn’t the case. Best Original Screenplay is where it really belongs, but the Academy has spoken (albeit so quietly that no one associated with the movie was told about the reassignment) and this category now has an open spot.

In addition to Whiplash, the WGA nominated Foxcatcher, Boyhood, Budapest, and Nightcrawler, but as always it’s important to note that prominent films are left off the WGA’s eligibility list each year, either because the writers aren’t WGA members, or because certain guild guidelines were not followed in the making of the film. The exact reasons for each omission are never explained. Whatever the causes, this year’s list of ineligible films on the Original side include Birdman, Selma, Mr. Turner and Calvary. Birdman will definitely right its course with an Oscar nomination, so can Foxcatcher repeat its WGA recognition and take the Oscar slot that would probably have gone to Whiplash? Possibly, but I’m inclined to think the space will go to Selma. One of the obstacles to making a movie about Martin Luther King for all these years has been the King estate’s refusal to grant rights to his speeches (from what I understand, they haven’t wanted to participate in a film about Dr. King that included references to his infidelities). So Selma proceeded without obtaining those rights, which partly meant channeling the spirit of Dr. King to write speeches that he never actually made, but which sound like he did.

Working against Selma‘s chances at recognition here is a dispute – a quiet one, to the credit of all involved – over writing acknowledgement. The original script for Selma was written by Paul Webb, a sixty-something British screenwriter. The project went through various incarnations on its way to getting made (Lee Daniels came close to doing it in 2010, and even had a cast in place that included Hugh Jackman, Liam Neeson, Cedric the Entertainer, Lenny Kravitz and Robert De Niro in addition to David Oyelowo, who remained attached as King). When Ava DuVernay came on to direct, she did significant re-writing that changed the structure of the script, shifted the focus, and included those originally-crafted speeches for King that I just talked about. But the story goes that Webb’s contract guaranteed him sole credit if he desired it, and that he chose to exercise that right despite the work to the script done by DuVernay. Because DuVernay is not a WGA member, she couldn’t fight for shared credit through the guild’s arbitration process. Without knowing the exact details or hearing Webb’s point of view, I’m left to think that his refusal to share credit is quite the dick move, similar to ones we’ve seen before. Just last year in fact, a similar situation arose with 12 Years a Slave, with writer John Ridley – who went on to win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay – choosing not to share credit with director Steve McQueen, who helped re-write the script after signing on. In 2009, Jason Reitman significantly re-wrote Sheldon Turner’s script on his own for Up in the Air, but Turner was allowed to retain co-credit, leading to some awkward appearances on the awards circuit that arguably cost the film an Oscar win. While the Selma situation hasn’t blown up into a public feud, it’s probably well-known in the filmmaking community, which could impact voters’ decision to nominate it. Will they ultimately decide to honor the work regardless of whose name is on it, or will fellow writers punish Webb by denying the nomination altogether? With admitted uncertainty, I’m going with the former. But if the nomination doesn’t happen, I’ll wonder if this was part of the reason.

If neither Selma nor Foxcatcher make it here, Mr. Turner is a possibility. The writer’s branch has nominated Mike Leigh five times before, so they obviously admire his work. J.C. Chandor’s first film Margin Call broke through in 2011 to win a nod, so while his latest A Most Violent Year seems to have been unfortunately lost in the crowd, the writing branch may take note. Animated movies get recognition here every now and again, so it’s not out of the question that the clever and witty script for The LEGO Movie could pop up. And while it is pretty much faded from the conversation, there was a time when Jon Favreau’s Chef was considered a strong contender for a spot here. I wish that buzz hadn’t evaporated.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
The expected nominees here are Gillian Flynn’s faithful adaptation of her own best-seller Gone Girl, and British Genius biopics The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything. The addition of Whiplash into the mix shakes things up for the remaining two spots, one of which I’m sure will now go to Chazelle. Theory of Everything was ineligible for the WGA Awards and Whiplash was classified as an Original, so along with Gone and Imitation, the guild’s nominees were Wild, American Sniper and Guardians of the Galaxy. The latter two came as surprises, especially since Inherent Vice was passed over. Sniper‘s appearance here is a mark of its increased strength, though I’m not sure it can pull off the Oscar nomination. Guardians, meanwhile, has even less chance with the Academy, though it’s fun to think about. Its guild mention is the kind of happy twist that can occur when typically Academy-friendly fare is deemed ineligible. Wild and Inherent Vice are still probably the best bets to round out the category, but one of them will probably be pushed out because of Whiplash. Then again, they aren’t the only players in the game. If voters look elsewhere regardless of the Whiplash factor, they could throw a bone to Unbroken, which has the impressive line-up of writers William Nicholson (Gladiator, Les Misérables), Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King, The Horse Whisperer) and Joel and Ethan Coen (no credit samples necessary). Into the Woods could also show up here, but without the guild nominations or the overall attention that movies of their stature might have received, Unbroken and Into the Woods remain long shots. Snowpiercer earned some critics groups nominations, but if the Academy were going to gravitate toward a genre film, Guardians seems a likelier candidate.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
Predicting this category is always challenging since the pool of contenders usually includes some foreign and independent films that have not received wide exposure. In addition, the number of nominees can vary based on how many films qualify by playing theatrically in Los Angeles. 20 animated features were submitted for consideration this year, but several had not yet held their qualifying runs at the time of that announcement in early November, and I don’t know how many of them have followed through. Assuming they all have, a slate of 20 contenders means there could be up to the maximum five nominees. Looking at the mainstream releases, we can safely say that The LEGO Movie, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Big Hero 6 will score nominations. The Boxtrolls is probably in too. Among the remaining broad releases, only The Book of Life seems a viable candidate, having been mentioned by several critics organizations. (I’m disappointed that I missed both of these movies in theaters and neither has arrived on DVD yet.) Mr. Peabody and Sherman, Rio 2, and The Penguins of Madagascar have all been completely ignored so far, except for some Annie Award nominations, and I’d be surprised to see any of them suddenly earn an Oscar nomination. Aside from these selections and few others that got broad-ish U.S. releases but have absolutely no shot of getting nominated (sorry Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return and Planes: Fire and Rescue), the highest profile film in the running is The Tale of Princess Kaguya, a gorgeous and mature hand-drawn film from Japan’s beloved Studio Ghibli. There’s also a new film, Song of the Sea, from Irish animator Tomm Moore, whose previous film The Secret of Kells surprised everyone with an out-of-nowere nomination in 2009, illustrating that members of the animation branch were looking beyond the mainstream. So don’t count him out for return visit.

Predictions:
Big Hero 6
The Boxtrolls
How to Train Your Dragon 2
The LEGO Movie
The Tale of Princess Kaguya

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Last year’s winner in this category was Emmanuel Lubezki for Gravity, and he finds himself at the front of the line again for his brilliant work on Birdman, which is intricately constructed to appear as if nearly the entire movie is one continuous shot. And as seems to be the case year after year, there is enough phenomenal photography to fill the category three times over. The American Society of Cinematographers, in addition to Birdman, selected Unbroken, Mr. Turner, The Imitation Game and The Grand Budapest Hotel. The only surprise was Imitation Game, which hasn’t received much attention for its camerawork, and which takes a spot that would better suit any number of other films. Where to begin? Gordon Willis, the great cinematographer who shot The Godfather trilogy and All the President’s Men among many others, passed away in May, but his spirit and style were very much alive in films like The Immigrant (shot by Darius Khondji), A Most Violent Year and Selma (both from relative newcomer Bradford Young). Under the Skin featured some of the year’s most striking images, as did the little-seen Dostoevsky adaptation The Double (which I have to say, I disliked so much that I turned it off before finishing, which I pretty much never do). On the opposite end of the indie/mainstream spectrum, Interstellar and Gone Girl each boasted the kind of impressive work we’re used to seeing in films from Christopher Nolan and David Fincher, while Dawn of the Planet of the Apes featured sensational compositions from beginning to end. Robert Elswit served up two L.A. stories this year, shooting Inherent Vice on film and going digital for Nightcrawler, with excellent results for both. The branch likes to go for black and white when it can, and some of the critics groups cited Ida, so that could be considered a long longshot to show up here. Fury, The Homesman, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash, Into the Woods, Wild…the members of this branch (and dorks like me who pretend that our selection on our dumb blogs mean something) have some hard choices to make.

The Academy usually strays slightly from the guild, so I’m guessing Imitation Game misses. On the other hand, voters sometimes go for the movie they like the best even if it isn’t the most deserving showcase in a given category. Overall enjoyment of Imitation probably helped score it the guild nod in the first place, so that could repeat here. But I’m taking my chances and betting elsewhere. With so many options though, I might as well pick a name out of a hat.

BEST FILM EDITING
With 12 years worth of footage to sort through, even if shooting only occurred for a few days each go-round, Boyhood editor Sandra Adair had a delicate task in choosing how to transition the characters through their growth, so count on a nomination for her. As mentioned in the previous section, Birdman is presented largely as if it were one fluid take. That’s not possible, of course, so the work of editors Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione had to be even more invisible than editing usually is in order to sustain the effect. Put them down for a nomination too. The broad appeal of The Imitation Game will probably help it find a slot here as well. Whiplash definitely deserves a spot, and stands an excellent chance of making it, but I also wouldn’t be surprised to see it squeezed out by something that isn’t necessarily as impressive on the editing front but which gets marked down anyway because voters sometimes equate this category with Best Picture too blindly (a nod for The Theory of Everything would be an example of that trend). Given that I’m predicting a Best Picture nomination for Whiplash, my doubts may be unfounded. I just don’t think it’s completely safe, even if it should be.

Gone Girl and American Sniper were cited by the American Cinema Editors (ACE) in their Drama category (along with Boyhood, Imitation and Whiplash), and Gone Girl may have an edge. The Academy’s editing branch loves them some David Fincher, as evidenced by the surprise Oscar win in 2011 for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (a year after the same editors won for Fincher’s The Social Network). Sniper, meanwhile, is the kind of action-drama that voters like to reward here. There’s also Selma, which missed with the guild but could still break in with the Academy.

In ACE’s Musical or Comedy category, Birdman is nominated alongside The Grand Budapest Hotel, Into the Woods, Guardians of the Galaxy and Inherent Vice. Budapest and Into the Woods could show up, but Vice and Guardians are less likely. If the editors were eyeing a straight-up action blockbuster, they would do better to nominate Edge of Tomorrow than Guardians. Interstellar also has a chance, though only a small one in the absence of overall support for the movie. I’d love to see Wild make the list, but unless the film does really well across the board, it will probably be passed over.

Predictions:
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Imitation Game
Whiplash

Personal Picks:
Birdman
Boyhood
Edge of Tomorrow
Whiplash
Wild

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Hard as it is to believe, not one of Wes Anderson’s movies has ever been nominated for art direction and set decoration. The Royal Tenenbaums? Nope. The Life Aquaticwith Steve Zissou? Nothing. The Darjeeling Limited? Uh-uh. Moonrise Kingdom? Didn’t happen. I still don’t know how that’s possible, but I’ve got to believe the pattern ends this year with the immaculate, exquisite design of The Grand Budapest Hotel. I refuse to entertain the notion that Adam Stockhausen’s phenomenal work will be passed over. In fact, forget the nomination; we should be jumping ahead to give him the Oscar right now.

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way…Voters in the design branches are always partial to period films and sci-fi/fantasy, so The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Inherent Vice, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Unbroken, The Immigrant and Mr. Turner all have a claim to stake on the period side, while Into the Woods, Maleficent, Guardians of the Galaxy and Interstellar lead the charge for the sci-fi/fantasy vote…although Interstellar is really more grounded than your usual sci-fi movie, eschewing the fantastical settings usually expected in the genre. The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies should be mentioned too, though I have a feeling that series has run its course in these two races. Snowpiercer, with its many distinctive train cars from grimy and filthy to shiny and glistening, is standout work that deserves a shot, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes‘ depiction of a decrepit San Francisco and the ape village in the redwoods was marvelous. Tim Burton and Terry Gilliam movies often do well with these branches, but Burton’s Big Eyes landed rather quietly this year, and Gilliam’s The Zero Theorem came and went with almost no attention paid (I enjoyed it, for what it’s worth). Also, despite my earlier comment that I couldn’t get through The Double, I’d be remiss not to mention it here too. It was a triumph of cinematography and production design, even if I wanted to punch every character in the face so badly that I had to stop watching.

Contemporary films rarely catch on in the sets and costume categories, but Birdman could be an exception thanks to the claustrophobic theater in which almost the entire movie is set. The way Emmanuel Lubezki’s camera prowls through the space shows it off in a way that makes it feel like its own character, and voters might respond to that.

Predictions:
Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Into the Woods
Mr. Turner

Personal Picks:
Birdman
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Snowpiercer
The Zero Theorem

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
In the interest of time, I’m just going to grab the first paragraph from the previous section and use it again here, with a few minor tweaks:

Hard as it is to believe, not one of Wes Anderson’s movies has ever been nominated for art direction and set decoration costume design. The Royal Tenenbaums? Nope. The Life Aquaticwith Steve Zissou? Nothing. The Darjeeling Limited? Uh-uh. Moonrise Kingdom? Didn’t happen. I still don’t know how that’s possible, but I’ve got to believe the pattern ends this year with the immaculate, exquisite design of The Grand Budapest Hotel. I refuse to entertain the notion that Adam Stockhausen’s Milena Canonero’s phenomenal work will be passed over. In fact, forget the nomination; we should be jumping ahead to give him her the Oscar right now.

The same rules apply to costumes as they do to sets, in terms of what Academy members gravitate toward, so once again The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Inherent Vice, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Immigrant, Mr. Turner, Into the Woods, Maleficent, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Guardians of the Galaxy, Selma and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part I are all in play. Personally, I’d throw in mentions for The Two Faces of January and A Most Violent Year too.

Predictions:
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Into the Woods
Mr. Turner
The Theory of Everything

Personal Picks:
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Imitation Game
Inherent Vice
Maleficent

BEST ORIGINAL SONGThis is the last piece of the post I’m trying to write, and I’m running out of time and patience, so I’ll keep this one uncharacteristically brief, and perhaps share a few more thoughts post-nominations. Steve Pond of The Wrap writes a comprehensive rundown of the eligible songs each year (there were 79 this time), so it’s a nice overview of the field. With so many choices, and with the notoriously idiotic rules by which the music branch votes, there’s usually at least one headscratcher in the bunch. We’ll see how it plays out. One song that I was disappointed not to see among the 79 possibilities is “I Love You All,” an odd yet oddly catchy and moving song from the movie Frank, about an eager, wannabe musician who stumbles into a gig with an avant garde indie band – The Soronprfbs – whose lead singer Frank wears a giant papier-mâché mask at all times. He’s played by Michael Fassbender, and that’s him singing.

Personal Picks:The Last Goodbye – The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Everything is Awesome – The LEGO Movie
I’ll Get You What You Want (Cockatoo in Malibu) – Muppets Most WantedWe’re Doing a Sequel – Muppets Most Wanted
Glory – Selma

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Whether it’s standard rules and policies or bad calls specific to each year, you can always count on the music branch to fuck things up right from the outset. This year, they’ve obliged by disqualifying what should absolutely be one of the five nominees: Antonio Sánchez’s percussion-driven score to Birdman. The Academy’s reason, in short, is that they felt the film used too much pre-existing music in addition to Sánchez’s original work, thereby lessening the impact of the score. The Hollywood Reporter offered a thorough play-by-play of what took place, with excerpts of the letters written by Sánchez and director Alejandro González Iñárritu as part of an effort to appeal the decision, as well as the Academy’s response. Unfortunately, the decision stood, despite efforts to explain how essential Sánchez was not only to the finished film, but to the production. Unlike most composers, he was involved early, working with the actors and crew in ways that are wholly atypical to how film scores usually come about. (Sánchez described the process in an interview with In Contention in early November, and spoke to the site again the day that the appeal was rejected. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubeski also brought up the score in a brief Hollywood Reporter story about the camerawork, explaining how key a role the music played in his own efforts.)

Sánchez’s work is essential to the film, underscoring beats physical, emotional and psychological, and functioning – like the camera and the sets – as yet another character occupying the labyrinth of the Broadway theater that serves as the movie’s primary locale. It’s a shame he won’t be included. Getting to who will be, the impossibly prolific Alexandre Desplat could be a double nominee for The Imitation Game and The Grand Budapest Hotel, with the former being the more certain nomination of the two. Hans Zimmer should also be a good bet for the rousing, propulsive score of Interstellar, and Jóhann Jóhannsson is a likely nominee for his classical work in The Theory of Everything. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who won this category in 2010 for David Fincher’s The Social Network, stand a good chance of a return trip with their typically unsettling score for Gone Girl. John Powell was nominated that year too, for How to Train Your Dragon, so perhaps the sequel could repeat. And if the members of the music branch are feeling adventurous, we could see a nod for the eerie tones created by Mica Levi for Under the Skin. Other scores that seem unlikely to break in but not impossible are The Homesman, Noah, A Most Violent Year, Selma, Unbroken and Mr. Turner.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Unlike the song and score categories, which have 79 and 114 possible nominees, respectively, the Makeup and Hairstyling category has only seven, an executive committee of branch members having been generous enough to review the full slate of options earlier and narrow it down. Three nominees will be chosen from The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Guardians of the Galaxy, Maleficent, Noah and The Theory of Everything. If my opening comment sounds tinged with a bit of sarcasm, well, it is. I don’t know why this branch (and the Visual Effects branch, coming up next) continue to employ this whittling-down process ahead of the nominations instead of just letting branch members cast their vote as they like for whatever makeup and hairstyling achievements from the year appeal to them. The films listed above are all worthy, but so are Snowpiercer, Get On Up, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Unbroken, and probably some others I’m not mentioning.

Of the seven, there are really four that seem to have the edge, and that’s one too many. As Foxcatcher‘s work is mainly limited to transforming Steve Carell, I suspect that may be the one that misses in favor of my three guesses below. Then again, the same could be said about The Theory of Everything and Eddie Redmayne’s transformation into Stephen Hawking. But I give Theory the edge over Foxcatcher because a) it’s the movie more Academy members will probably enjoy and therefore nominate across multiple categories, and b) turning Redmayne into Hawking was a gradual process throughout the film, whereas turning Carell into John du Pont was a one-shot deal…applied daily, of course, but there was no variation to the makeup itself. The branch is no more inclined toward fantasy creations than it is toward realistic ones, so maybe Guardians gets nosed out by Foxcatcher. Or maybe those both make the cut and Grand Budapest gets bumped. So few contenders, so many possibilities.

Predictions:
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Theory of Everything

Personal Picks:
Same

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Although the Visual Effects branch also culls the year’s offerings down to a select few for semi-final consideration, at least their longlist now features ten films and eventually five nominees. They used to match the Makeup branch with seven and three. This year, voters can choose from Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Godzilla, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Interstellar, Maleficent, Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb, Transformers: Age of Extinction and X-Men: Days of Future Past.

I think we can dismiss Maleficent and Night at the Museum from the outset, buy any combination of the other eight seems possible. Every one of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth films has been nominated, so the final adventure would seem a slum dunk. But is it? It’s the first of the films that doesn’t really have anything new to offer in the way of effects, and it’s easy to imagine that a bit of fatigue has set in where these are concerned. Neither of the previous Hobbit films has won, whereas all three Lord of the Rings films did. Telling, or just a matter of more groundbreaking competition from past two winners Life of Pi and Gravity? The Transformers movies are as ridiculous as ever, but their visual effects have always been superb. If only the scripts could be as good. Two of the three prior entries in the series were nominated. Where will this one fall? (If I’d seen it, it would probably make my personal picks, but I haven’t. It’s just so hard to sit through them…). None of the X-Men films have been able to crack this category, and I can’t recall much about the specifics or the quality of the work in Days of Future Past…except for that one fantastic Quicksilver/prison break scene which is so good that the movie could land a spot just based on that alone.

Predictions:
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Interstellar
Transformers: Age of Extinction

Personal Picks:
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Godzilla
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
X-Men: Days of Future Past

BEST SOUND EDITING/BEST SOUND MIXING
I’m always repeating myself when this category comes around, but I should relax and acknowledge that nobody remembers what I write in these columns from year to year. I doubt anyone will remember in five minutes. I mean, c’mon…are you even still reading this? What the hell is wrong with you?

What I say every year is basically this: that nobody knows what makes good sound editing or sound mixing. Except for sound editors and sound mixers and maybe James Cameron. So even though I’ve finally got a handle on what the two crafts mean, that doesn’t really illuminate who or what should or will be nominated. In the giant guessing game that is Oscar predicting, the sound categories are among the guessiest. But I’ll try anyway. To quote directly from my post last year: the sound editors record or create sounds that could not be captured during filming, either because dragons nuclear-mutated lizards [I figured I’d at least update that bit] are not real (so I’m told) or maybe because the location was too noisy to get a usable recording of a particular real-world sound. Sound mixers then take all the sound effects and the music and the dialogue, and blend it all together in proper relation to each other.

So with this category, we’re looking at every action movie and summer blockbuster; we’re looking at sci-fi and fantasy; we’re looking at war movies; we’re looking at musicals or movies with big musical numbers; and we’re occasionally looking at animated films. It’s a wide field, and although my predictions don’t include The LEGO Movie, Begin Again, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Fury, Unbroken, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Gone Girl, Selma, or Whiplash, any of them could conceivably show up…as could any number of other titles. So how’s that for making a bold stand?

Sound Mixing Predictions:
American Sniper
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Into the Woods
Transformers: Age of Extinction

Another thing I always say about these categories is that I think, with my admitted lack of understanding of the sound field, that both of these categories should be eliminated in favor of one category recognizing overall Sound Design. It is in this fantasy category that I always select my personal picks…because I have no framework for making personal picks in the actual categories. My Sound Design nominees would be: Fury, Godzilla, Interstellar, Under the Skin and Wild.

X X
Now then…having wasted more than enough of everyone’s time, my own included, that about wraps it up. As usual, I’m far too in the dark about the documentaries and foreign language films to venture any guesses, and forget about the short films; that’s just not happening.

The nominees will be announced tomorrow morning, and in a new experiment for the Academy, all categories will be unveiled live, beginning at 5:30am PST. (Usually the on-air announcement covers only Picture, Director, the acting categories, the writing categories, Animated Feature, Foreign Language Film and Documentary Feature.) Half the nominees will be announced by J.J. Abrams and current Best Director champ Alfonso Cuarón, then the rest – including those major categories I just mentioned – will be read by Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs and Chris Pine. For those who like to know exactly what they’re getting into, here’s how it will break down. (Jeez, they couldn’t have thrown Abrams and Cuarón one “major” category? Best Director might have been logical…)

I was going to leave you with a clip from a past Oscar show, but then I stumbled upon this, and that was pretty much that.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Despite the length (I had to read it over more than one work break), this was an enjoyable article. You elaborated your criteria well and clearly, even when admitting unfamiliarity of some crafts.

I was a sound editor, mixer and Foley walker / editor for 23 years. Perhaps I can help fill in some of the gaps in your already above-average knowledge.

The reason combining those two categories (sound mixing, sound editing) is impractical is that those functions are rarely performed by the same people on the same production. Combining them would open a huge can of worms, worse than (but much like) the problems you listed regarding screenplay credits.

Sound Designers and editors are interchangeable job titles. Both invent, adapt and supply the synchronous but uncombined material from fx libraries, originally created or recorded sounds, and Foley. Foley is sound caused by human movements, including footsteps, prop handling and clothing noise.. Too irregular to cut in, unlike gunshots or door closes, it’s recorded “live” on a number of separate tracks.

Mixers combine all the elements, separating them into three types of submixes – Dialogue / Music / Effects, creating the balance desired by producers and directors. They don’t generate the sounds, aside from possibly altering eq, adding reverb and other little tweaks. Their skill is in reducing what are sometimes hundreds of tracks down to 5.1 / 7.1 and stereo versions, allowing listeners to hear whatever is considered (decided to be) most important at all times.

Many thanks for your comment, Mikey. (May I call you Mikey?) It was nice – and unexpected – to get some feedback from someone who worked in the sound field and can illuminate some things about which I’m in the dark. Your thoughts on why combining sound mixing and sound editing into one award would be a bad idea make complete sense, so let me clarify what I was trying to suggest, because it wasn’t quite that. Or…maybe it was, and I don’t even realize it. So here’s my breakdown. Since nominees in every category are selected by members of those individual branches, we can kinda sorta trust that the choices will make sense and represent excellent work in the craft (though of course we all have our opinions about what should be recognized).

But when it comes to voting for the winner, all Academy members vote in every category. And what does your average costume designer or makeup artist or actor or screenwriter know about sound editing and sound mixing? Those categories seem particularly difficult to evaluate without truly understanding the work that goes into them, whereas a sound designer or sound mixer who might not understand the work that goes into cinematography or production design can at least look at the visuals onscreen and form a reasonable opinion. Selecting the Best Sound Mixing and Editing seems like a more elusive task.

So for a long time, my thinking has been that maybe a single category honoring the complete aural landscape of a film would be a better way to go. I’ve been calling it Best Sound Design, but your explanation that sound design and sound editing are the same thing means I’ve been using the word incorrectly. But the idea is that the layman might be slightly better equipped to offer their opinion about the overall use of sound in a movie than they are about the more detailed work of mixing and editing. When we’re even consciously aware of a movie’s sound, we’re probably responding to a combination of mixing, editing and other components of the art rather than one or each of those components independently.

I’m sure there are reasons not occurring to me which make my idea equally or even more problematic than the way things are currently done, but I still like it. I don’t know what such a category would be called, now that you’ve helped me understand why Best Sound Design wouldn’t be the proper name. I guess I have until this post next year to come up with a better one. Your guidance would be welcome!

One last thing, off topic. If you don’t mind my asking, how did you come across this post? You’re a first time commenter and I’m guessing a first-time reader, and I’m still fairly in the dark about how people find blogs that they don’t have a personal connection to or that aren’t getting publicized in other high profile places. I’d love to know how this came to your attention. However you found it, thanks for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts and your knowledge. Much appreciated!

The way I read WP blogs is by using the “explore” cloud of clickable topics. I hit “movies” every time I’m here, scroll down the blurb excerpts, and skim a few that catch my eye or brain. That’s how I found your article. Tags help drive traffic.

You’ve been misinformed about how the Academy votes. Everyone gets to vote for Best Picture. Every other award is decided exclusively by voters who have the same occupation as those in the category. Sound editors vote for sound editors, cinematographers vote for their own, directors for directors etc.

Thanks for the explanation. I’m always interested in learning how new people discover the blog.

Regarding the Academy voting process, what you describe is how things work at the nomination stage. Members of the sound branch select the nominees for the sound categories, actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors and so forth, and the entire membership can vote on what will be nominated for Best Picture. When it comes to final voting however, the branch distinctions don’t apply. All members can vote in every category…with the possible exception of things like Foreign Language Film and the short films. There used to be rules that you had to meet certain criteria in order to vote for those categories, but some of them – maybe all; I’d have to look it up – have been opened up to the general membership.

You got me excited last night about Nightcrawler. You know how much I enjoyed it, but didn’t think it would get any Oscar love until I read your post. Drat, only got the screenplay nom.

Very excited about Whiplash. Didn’t realize it was doing so well on the circuit and that J.K. was such a front runner. I’m not ready to label it my favorite of the year as I’m woefully behind on movies, but it’s definitely the movie I’ve continued to think about the most.

Surprised that Foxcatcher got so many nods. As we talked about I liked it, but didn’t love it…except for Mark Ruffalo. Very happy to see him nominated.

Haven’t seen Sniper, but not surprised at all with all it’s attention. I have to assume some people didn’t get a chance to see it, but nominated because of buzz and the pedigree (and the fine trailer).

Once again I commend you on the breath of you pre-oscar writeup, but you really have to get this out earlier next year.

Yeah, I was surprised Nightcrawler didn’t do better. Not surprised that Whiplash did so well, though with a smaller movie like that, it can go either way, so I’m happy to see that it went the way it did. Foxcatcher did better than I expected too. I need to see it again; my thoughts on it aren’t fully formed. As for American Sniper, it’s a solid movie, but doesn’t deserve a single one of these above-the-line nominations. Very disappointing. More to come on all this when I get around to posting my thoughts on the nominations.

Regarding the timing – I know. Really, I do. I spent every free moment I had over the course of five days (FIVE DAYS, including a full weekend!) working on this. I couldn’t have started it any sooner than I did because I was still seeing movies, and as it is I stayed up too late every night working on it (including 4:00am the night before I posted it, then going to work on 2 hours sleep…no, not even 2 hours sleep; 2 hours in bed is more accurate). I hate getting it out so late, but it was the best I could do. Seriously, you have no idea how much work goes into this and how long it takes me. It’s more brutal than it’s worth. I’m an insane person. BUT…if I can take some vacation around the holidays next year, which I couldn’t this year, then I can wrap-up my moviegoing earlier, and then get started on this earlier and just maybe post it more than nine hours before the damn nominations are announced.